Why Accountability to Fed-u-crats Is Damaging Student Achievement

Why Accountability to Fed-u-crats Is Damaging Student Achievement

When the concept of accountability burst upon education policymaking in the latter half of the 20th century, it sounded like a good idea.  It went something like this:  If the government gives the public schools money, it should be able to expect something in return showing that the public schools warranted the money, not just an audit report showing that the money was spent in allowed categories (e.g., ƒpersonnel, supplies, administration). The concept was implicit in the 1994 re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) under President Bill Clinton.  Later, in his State of the Union address in 1996, President Clinton called for national voluntary tests in grade 4 reading and grade 8 mathematics. But in 1997, the Republican-led Congress killed the idea by refusing to appropriate money for the tests. (See, for example, articles in The Los Angeles Times here or The Baltimore Sun here.)

The idea was embedded into federal law under President George W. Bush as part of No Child Left Behind, the 2001 re-authorization of ESEA. Many of his education advisors believed an "education miracle" had happened under his governorship in Texas in the 1990s after state tests were mandated, schools faced various sanctions for not showing improved student performance, and school performance improved. Bush's education advisors were convinced that if accountability were built into ESEA's 2001 re-authorization (in the form of sanctions for low-performing schools when student performance didn't improve on state-mandated tests), we could expect better results than the public was seeing from the billions in Title I money that had been appropriated for the education of low-income children since ESEA's inception in 1965. Not only had there been little research on the reasons for the meager positive results since 1965, there seemed to be little thinking about the differing meanings and effects of accountability in local, state, or federal education policy-making.

Ball’s in AG Healey’s Court:  Will She Take on Democrat-Leaning Law Firm for ‘Straw’ Political Donations?
News

Ball’s in AG Healey’s Court: Will She Take on Democrat-Leaning Law Firm for ‘Straw’ Political Donations?

Evan Lips

BOSTON — A Beacon Hill public finance watchdog has pounced on a recent report indicating that state campaign finance officials plan to direct Attorney General Maura Healey to consider making a criminal case out of a prominent Hub law firm's pattern of reimbursing its lawyers and spouses for donations made to both Massachusetts and national Democrats.

The critical comments made Friday by Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance executive director Paul Craney followed a Boston Globe report confirming that the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance fired off a letter last month to the Thornton Law Firm outlining evidence that purportedly proves that the firm illegally reimbursed its attorneys and associated family members up to $175,000 for a series of campaign contributions.

Read More